Breaking News: Search for WMD over!!!!!

[vinnieponte]

WHAT THE (edited by a Dallas-Mavs.com moderator)??? Does everybody remmember that day when BUSH came on tv and addressed the nation that we're going to war because Sadam & Iraq have "Weapons of mass destructions"???? Well they never found them and now their giving up. SO WHAT THE HELL IS THE WAR ABOUT NOW?????
So everything was based on false information, or was it just the best reason to start a war? Either way this show that the Bush administrations was wrong for starting a war with nothing more that fairy tales. And this is the guy half the country backs, Am I reall proud to be american??


White House Says Iraq Weapons Search Over

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said.

"If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports," McClellan said. "A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

[reeds]

Vinnie, before all the right wing bush lovers reply- I will already tell you their response to this..or a brief summary anyway..

All the weapons were hidden!! Dont you get it...geez....that country is big, with many great hiding places..there is no way we could have looked at all of them!! DUH!

Or, they were all taken out of the country before we invaded!! Any fool knows that!!!

Dont worry- You will not hear anything close to the fact that BUSH and his administration were WRONG!!!

[#1MavsFan]

Originally posted by: reeds

All the weapons were hidden!! Dont you get it...geez....that country is big, with many great hiding places..there is no way we could have looked at all of them!! DUH!

Or, they were all taken out of the country before we invaded!! Any fool knows that!!!

So true, wonder how fox spun it.

[vinnieponte]

This is by far the most obvious lie/misguided truth that Bush and his administration have put out there. I remmember that night like it was yesterday! Bush couldn't go one minute without saying "Saddam and the Iraq people have wmd's" How can anyone back this up????

[FishForLunch]

So why dont the dems start impeachment proceeding against Bush for "lying". Can Saddam sue the US in court for wrongful action against his just rule?

[Chiwas]

Several months ago it became clear what this war was for.

I remember that madape said, more or less, that if this war was for the oil, it was OK for him.

Masks off, there are people who agree with the fact, and people who don't. Lies were put behind, I thought.

[mavsman55]

Or, they were all taken out of the country before we invaded!! Any fool knows that!!!

Well, considering the fact that we had to wait several weeks before searching because Saddam didn't let us... that makes sense now doesn't it? There's no reason he would do that if he didn't have anything to hide.
4 more years.

[mavsman55]

Am I reall proud to be american??

Well, this pretty much sums up the viewpoints of you and all your whiny liberal friends.

[u2sarajevo]

I am deeply disturbed by this. I can't help but feel betrayed. I expect an apology from the ones that sold us on this action, although that wouldn't right the wrongs.

I have been expecting, and ignoring the naysayers, to hear the exact opposite either now or in the future. Closure on the justification of this war in my mind would have been the discovery of the weapons we are now not going to look for anymore.

I am proud to be an American, but this one is hard to swallow.

[vinnieponte]

I can't believe that this hasn't sparked outrage all across the world. We we're all lied to/falsy mislead, and there is NO TRUTH to the REASON WHY WE WENT TO WAR. Now Bush has the soilders blood on his hands. Shouldn't the war end since we have no REAL reason to be there. This is just like the Nixon era!!

[Dooby]

I agree pretty much with every word U2 said. Like a lot of people I fully expected:

1) We knew there were WMD;
2) We knew where they were;
3) Securing those locations was a top priority.

I fully believed all 3. I fully believed that we would discover a varitable "Home Depot" of WMD buried in the dessert. This did not happen and it appears now that none of the 3 were true.

My only question is how exactly, would we end the war now, differently than what we are doing at this moment? Vinnieponte, the answer to this question is why John Kerry did not get my vote.

[vinnieponte]

You believed and nothing had truth! Bush took us to war because he believed and was wrong! Now over 1,500 INNOCENT troops have died for a false cause. How can Bush explain that, and why would someone back up a person like him. He has the soilders blood on his hands now. Doesn't that mean he goes to hell?

[jacktruth]

I agree that it is bad we didn't find WMDs, but I agree it was a justified war because:

Prewar:
1. Hussein used WMDs in the past.
2. Hussein did not let the UN have real inspections.
3. Hussein was defiant on many other UN resolutions.

Post war:
4. Hussein had the capability to begin a weapons program and I am convinced he would have as soon as the inspections stopped.
5. When the US says that we are going to be aggressive about terrorism, we mean it.
6. Libya admitted to a WMD program.
7. We now know how meaningless UN resolutions are because the UN doesn't enforce them.
8. We now know how corrupt the UN is because of the subsequent oil-for-food program exposure. Hopefully, the rest of the world will see it too (except of course those "ally" nations that lined thier pockets with OFF money).
9. As a result of the above, most American's now see how worthless the UN really is.
7. A liberated Iraq is an asset to us in the War on Terror.
8. A brutal, murderous, Freedom hating regime is gone.

I find it interesting that the democratic party is still stuck on an issue that was relevant two years ago. They engage in desctructive language about the past while ignoring the current issue of the day like how to win the war, showing support for the upcoming Iraqi elections, and giving our troops something to fight for.

This isn't a current issue. It is a conclusion to what we have known for a year now: we can't find WMDs. I see this as a preference to focus on the future. . .winning the war. I suggest democrats do the same.


Newsflash, Kerry lost, the democratic party lost. Live in the now.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I am deeply disturbed by this. I can't help but feel betrayed. I expect an apology from the ones that sold us on this action, although that wouldn't right the wrongs.

I have been expecting, and ignoring the naysayers, to hear the exact opposite either now or in the future. Closure on the justification of this war in my mind would have been the discovery of the weapons we are now not going to look for anymore.

I am proud to be an American, but this one is hard to swallow.

Yes U2 we should be proud to be Americans but not so proud of our leaders who have brought us to this point.

If there had not been a rush to war, and the mindset of ignoring those who called for caution, we would not have the situation where we find ourselves in today. We would not be incurring the cost of over a thousand American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives, and the hundreds of billions of our dollars being spent in this war. We would not be having to carry the weight of this war on our backs when there are many other issues left unaddressed.

One has to ask how Bush could see fit to give those responsible for the mistaken assertions (such as Tenet) medals when their failure is so apparent. It is incredible to believe that Bush is completely oblivious to their failures.

But apparently he is.

[u2sarajevo]

Well, if Bush believed as I did (granted I'm on the outside) then there was no "rush" to war. Before the war everyone thought they had weapons and Hussein was defiant for 12 years.

In hindsight I can see why he was so, if indeed he did comply (although I am more inclined to believe he hid them out of the country - I don't understand why we are giving up though if intel believes that).

I still believe in our leadership. Bush is a strong leader in my mind, no matter what you say.

But if the stance is now that we are giving up searching for the weapons, his supporters deserve more explanation than a proverbial shoulder shrug.

[mercury_rev]

Just a hypothetical:

If we had not gone into Iraq, and if there had been no further adequate inspections, and if it turned out that Saddam did in fact have WMD's several of which got in the hands of al-Qaeda or some other terrorists - who would be the first ones screaming that Bush lied and did not do enough to eliminate a threat in order to protect his oil-buddy Saddam?

[mavsman55]

You nailed that one mercury.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

One has to ask how Bush could see fit to give those responsible for the mistaken assertions (such as Tenet) medals when their failure is so apparent. It is incredible to believe that Bush is completely oblivious to their failures.
But apparently he is.

It seems obvious W knows he, and those he trusted, are responsible for "mistaken Assertions" of varing consequence.
It's incredible that you, and other shortminded detractors like you, believe Bush should cut-and-run from Iraq. Yet what's equally incredible - you expect him to run the white house like a 'Reality' TV show, just calling people like Rummy, Tenet, and Wolfowitz into the Oval Office to be 'fired!'
Give your President some credit.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: capitalcity

It seems obvious W knows he, and those he trusted, are responsible for "mistaken Assertions" of varing consequence.
It's incredible that you, and other shortminded detractors like you, believe Bush should cut-and-run from Iraq.

Oh? If it's so "obvious", why were those responsible for the failures given presidential Awards? This from Mr. Accountability?

Why do you invent the issue of "cut and run"? I didn't advocate (nor mention) leaving. nice try.

Yet what's equally incredible - you expect him to run the white house like a 'Reality' TV show, just calling people like Rummy, Tenet, and Wolfowitz into the Oval Office to be 'fired!'
Give your President some credit.

oh yes, I'm more than willing to give him all the credit for the mistakes made so far, both by him and his crew. and there's a ton of 'em.

in fact, he's most likely going to be remembered as "The Mistaken President".

[capitalcity]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Oh? If it's so "obvious", why were those responsible for the failures given presidential Awards? This from Mr. Accountability?

The same reason they weren't fired - you don't start throwing people under the bus just because you missed a street sign.

Why do you invent the issue of "cut and run"? I didn't advocate (nor mention) leaving. nice try.

True... I should have said duck-and-cover.

oh yes, I'm more than willing to give him all the credit for the mistakes made so far, both by him and his crew. and there's a ton of 'em.

So allowing Saddam to defraud the US and cooperate with radical al-qaida members wouldn't have been a mistake?

he's most likely going to be remembered as "The Mistaken President".

Or the steadfast President. When so many like you have tried to undermine his vision and have questioned his resolve in the defeat of islamofacists abroad, OUR Commander-in-chief has protected all of us and made the tough decisions. Tough decisions like keeping Don Rumsfeld, despite several poor moves, because he is the best man for the job.

[Mavdog]

Far from anybody being tossed "under a bus", it's common for people who fail in their task to be admonished. This thread is about the issue of WMD, which of course was the rationale for invading Iraq, and the group headed by Tenet who obviously failed in their task. No WMD, no need to attack immediately rather than continuing with other means of controlling Hussein.

You can conjure up an Al Queda link if you wish, yet a wish, that's all it is, an attempt to create a fact out of a supposition.

Odd that you introduce Rumsfeld, he wasn't part of the trio (which included Tenet) I mentioned were given the highest Presidential award for....failing. making mistakes. He could very well end up part of that group, his grade isn't in yet.

yep, it seems to stick. The Mistaken President.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: Mavdog -You can conjure up an Al Queda link if you wish, yet a wish, that's all it is, an attempt to create a fact out of a supposition.

Supposition= Osama's disciple Zarqawi was merely vacationing in Iraq when he arrived in late 2001.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: capitalcity

Supposition= Osama's disciple Zarqawi was merely vacationing in Iraq when he arrived in late 2001.

Zarqawi was in the northern area of Iraq outside of Hussein's control, Powell said such at the UN when he asserted he had "facts, not assertions." History has shown it to be the opposite.

yes, supposition. and very tenuous.

The Mistaken President.

[#1MavsFan]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
I agree that it is bad we didn't find WMDs, but I agree it was a justified war because:

Prewar:
1. Hussein used WMDs in the past.
2. Hussein did not let the UN have real inspections.
3. Hussein was defiant on many other UN resolutions.

Post war:
4. Hussein had the capability to begin a weapons program and I am convinced he would have as soon as the inspections stopped.
5. When the US says that we are going to be aggressive about terrorism, we mean it.
6. Libya admitted to a WMD program.
7. We now know how meaningless UN resolutions are because the UN doesn't enforce them.
8. We now know how corrupt the UN is because of the subsequent oil-for-food program exposure. Hopefully, the rest of the world will see it too (except of course those "ally" nations that lined thier pockets with OFF money).
9. As a result of the above, most American's now see how worthless the UN really is.
7. A liberated Iraq is an asset to us in the War on Terror.
8. A brutal, murderous, Freedom hating regime is gone.

I find it interesting that the democratic party is still stuck on an issue that was relevant two years ago. They engage in desctructive language about the past while ignoring the current issue of the day like how to win the war, showing support for the upcoming Iraqi elections, and giving our troops something to fight for.

This isn't a current issue. It is a conclusion to what we have known for a year now: we can't find WMDs. I see this as a preference to focus on the future. . .winning the war. I suggest democrats do the same.


Newsflash, Kerry lost, the democratic party lost. Live in the now.

Prewar:
1. A lot of countrys have used wmd's in the past, why don't we go to war with all of them?
2. Yeah, right. Thats why the UN was positive Hussein didn't have them, and guess what even Bush's own cabinet said he didn't.
3. We are starting to become that way, with the war and everything else going on right now.

Post war:
4. So lets start a war over a hunch? And that hunch can be said about almost 100 countries.
5. Yeah, by going to war with a country not associated with terrorism.
6. Your point is? There's dozens of countrys with them.
7. First you say the iraq wasn't fully compliant with the UN now you bash the UN since they're against DUMB wars. hypocrite?
8. Are you kidding? And I'm sorry to inform you of this but the whole world right now thinks WE'RE CORRUPT since it kinda seems like we're going to war for oil.
9. Most americans who watch fox news which recieves direct funds from the republican party to spin issues and not to mention a former republican party campaign manager owns it and opened it as a advertisement for the republican party.
7. So you think we can go to war with countries just so they'll be assets to us?
8. At what cost? we've killed almost 1/3rd as much civilians as huseein killed in his 20years+ regime. And not to mention the fact many countries have brutal regimes (I'm starting to think we're one of them).

Get your facts straight. And who won the election has nothing to with whats going on in iraq since whoever is the president is, it's his job to make sure it's being done the right way, but its not since our idiotic president can't even keep his fly closed(refer to the meeting in japan i think) yet alone manage a war.

Can't wait till someone with half a clue on whats going on and a iq higher than the average 2nd grader comes in to clean this mess up.

[mavsman55]

2. Yeah, right. Thats why the UN was positive Hussein didn't have them, and guess what even Bush's own cabinet said he didn't.

Am I the only one who seems to remember us Saddam making us wait a very long period of time before we were permitted to search?

Am I the only one who seems to remember us not being allowed to fly planes over the country and take aerial shots?

Obviously the man had something to hide, or none of this would have been a problem.

Can't wait till someone with half a clue on whats going on and a iq higher than the average 2nd grader comes in to clean this mess up.

Jus to let you know, Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's.

[#1MavsFan]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Am I the only one who seems to remember us Saddam making us wait a very long period of time before we were permitted to search?

Am I the only one who seems to remember us not being allowed to fly planes over the country and take aerial shots?

Obviously the man had something to hide, or none of this would have been a problem.

If someone asked us if they could come invade our country to search for something wouldn't you be a little hesitent? And the UN was positive when they left they didn't have any, and where could they hide them? They're pretty hard to cover up, and the UN inspected the suspected factorys where they thought they might have been producing them but found NOTHING,

Jus to let you know, Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's.

Yeah, right. Where are you getting this info from?

And have you already forgotten the debates?

Kerrys talking, Bush starts yelling trying to disturb him than the moderator tells bush to shh. Then comes bush's turn he says nothing for 30-45 seconds and than replys with something not related to the topic.

[capitalcity]

F the U.N.

Got that? - F'em.

[jacktruth]

1. A lot of countrys have used wmd's in the past, why don't we go to war with all of them?

Pre 9-11 mentality

2. Yeah, right. Thats why the UN was positive Hussein didn't have them, and guess what even Bush's own cabinet said he didn't.

They agreed to announce inspections beforehand. He went through a lot of trouble to have mobile testing labs for this very reason.

3. We are starting to become that way, with the war and everything else going on right now.

The original intent of UN resolutions was to use force if they were broken. Yes
we are defiant because now we realize that the UN is corrupt and it is pointless
to count on them for our national security decisions.

4. So lets start a war over a hunch? And that hunch can be said about almost 100 countries.

A hunch is different than a threat. It's also a Pre 9-11 mentality.
Can you name those 100 countries by the way?

5. Yeah, by going to war with a country not associated with terrorism.

Pre 9-11

6. Your point is? There's dozens of countrys with them.

And Libya came forward in an effort to avoid US confrontation.

7. First you say the iraq wasn't fully compliant with the UN now you bash the UN since they're against DUMB wars. hypocrite?

Hypocrite? No. Basing information that we know only because of the war. I would say the UN is hyporcitical. They have laws they won't enforce. They have a corrupt OFF program.

8. Are you kidding? And I'm sorry to inform you of this but the whole world right now thinks WE'RE CORRUPT since it kinda seems like we're going to war for oil.

Really? Have you interviewed the whole world? Do you know how much "favors" France and Russia used to get from Iraq?
Sore loser Democrats are the only ones I've heard say this. The rest of the world can believe whatever they want and it doesn't make it true.

9. Most americans who watch fox news which recieves direct funds from the republican party to spin issues and not to mention a former republican party campaign manager owns it and opened it as a advertisement for the republican party.

And the rest listen to the other stations that have are biased to the left. Maybe the right is just that...

7. So you think we can go to war with countries just so they'll be assets to us?

No, but I think assets to the war on terror are a good thing. They sure weren't assets before the war.

8. At what cost? we've killed almost 1/3rd as much civilians as huseein killed in his 20years+ regime. And not to mention the fact many countries have brutal regimes (I'm starting to think we're one of them).

We freed the rest of them. Despite what the left says, a large majority of Iragi's are happy that thier freedom is just around the corner.

Get your facts straight. And who won the election has nothing to with whats going on in iraq since whoever is the president is, it's his job to make sure it's being done the right way, but its not since our idiotic president can't even keep his fly closed(refer to the meeting in japan i think) yet alone manage a war.

Where are you getting your facts from again? The DNC campaign headquarters? CBS news?

Get your facts straight. And who won the election has nothing to with whats going on in iraq since whoever is the president is, it's his job to make sure it's being done the right way, but its not since our idiotic president can't even keep his fly closed(refer to the meeting in japan i think) yet alone manage a war.

The campaign is over. I haven't heard a single public statement from democrats or any non public statement from any democrat about the current state of the war except criticism. It is a party of attacks, not ideas. They have no ideas. They have no clues. They will probably spend the next 4 years still talking about Abu Graib and WMD, two issues that the public understands enough to reelect Bush.

Can't wait till someone with half a clue on whats going on and a iq higher than the average 2nd grader comes in to clean this mess up.

Remind me again who the President of the United States is? Seems he was smart enough to beat that liberal jughead the democrats put up.

[#1MavsFan]

What does Pre-911 mentality have to do with anything? It doesn't give us the right to go to war with anyone.

The original intent of UN resolutions was to use force if they were broken. Yes
we are defiant because now we realize that the UN is corrupt and it is pointless
to count on them for our national security decisions.

So by that statement you seem to think iraq was a threat to us? I'm sorry to inform you this but they were far from a threat, and we just recertified they didn't have the ability to do anything.

hunch is different than a threat. It's also a Pre 9-11 mentality.
Can you name those 100 countries by the way?

What threat, you've lost it iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 keep thinking they did without 1 bit of evidence. And just about any country that wants to protect it self in this day and age had some sorts of wmd's.

Hypocrite? No. Basing information that we know only because of the war. I would say the UN is hyporcitical. They have laws they won't enforce. They have a corrupt OFF program.

Lets see what information do we know from the war...hmmm we once again know iraq didn't have wmd's just like the UN said, nice try.

And the rest listen to the other stations that have are biased to the left. Maybe the right is just that...

Are you kidding? CNN, MSNBC, etc aren't biased to the left, and its kinda sad you think so just because they state a fact about Bush every once in a while. Cspan is a little biased but they state actual facts instead of spinning everything. Facts are different from idiots like oreilly spinning views to receive some extra $$$$.

No, but I think assets to the war on terror are a good thing. They sure weren't assets before the war.

Yeah filling a country that didn't have ties to terrorism with terrorists and forcing they're own civilians to become "terrorists" since they don't want us there, sure is a asset! Amazes me how you can believe lie after lie after lie after lie from bush.

We freed the rest of them. Despite what the left says, a large majority of Iragi's are happy that thier freedom is just around the corner.

That statement is wrong in so many ways. Iraqis are fighting back against us in Iraq, while others are trying to hide from us. Almost 95% don't want us there especially after all we've done there.

The campaign is over. I haven't heard a single public statement from democrats or any non public statement from any democrat about the current state of the war except criticism. It is a party of attacks, not ideas. They have no ideas. They have no clues. They will probably spend the next 4 years still talking about Abu Graib and WMD, two issues that the public understands enough to reelect Bush.

What else do you want them to say about the war? It's going great we just killed another 1000 civilans and lost 10 more soldiers? Some people have morals and integrity and won't lie with such statements unlike bush. No clues? Did you watch the debates, and everything else? Bush has shown the last 4 years he has no clue and during the debates stood there speechless while thinking of something to say since he has NO IDEA what he's doing.

Remind me again who the President of the United States is? Seems he was smart enough to beat that liberal jughead the democrats put up.

Winning with lies and a dirty campaign from Rove isn't exactly something to be proud of. And most of the american people voted for him since he got us in this mess and they figure he better get us out or democrats will win for the next 20 years. And it doesn't look like bush has a chance of getting us out.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: #1MavsFan
So by that statement you seem to think iraq was a threat to us? I'm sorry to inform you this but they were far from a threat, and we just recertified they didn't have the ability to do anything.

Offering safe harbor to enemies of the United States is a threat. Yeah, it's that simple.

The Taliban didn't posess WMD - yet that didn't stop them from aiding and abetting the coordinated attacks that killed 3,000 on 9/11.

[a.weidner]

Offering safe harbor to enemies of the United States is a threat. Yeah, it's that simple.

Actually no. It's not that simple. Some conservatives tend to reduce everything to black and white, well the world just doesn't work that way. Terrorists and potential terrorists are hiding all over the world. Actively supporting terrorists could be qualified as a thread but not the mere presence of one of them in a country.
And btw, there's a striking difference between the Taliban regime and the Saddam regime. The Taliban were religious fundamentalists and were supporting a group of terrorists, who utilize religious believes to gain support). But I guess the religion factor doesn't matter, since the Bush administration made it clear from the very beginning that this was labeled as a "War on terror" instead of one on religious fundamantalism. Some may think, that was done on purpose to clear the path to Baghdad. But I guess it was just a neat term at that time. Saddam was a typical dictator, who just wanted to satisfy his hunger for might and used every possible mean to keep and to gain more might. He was no religous man and as such was not a natural ally of Al-Qaida. His hybris was his fall. He though the US would not break UN resolutions, stretching them like he did, but not breaking in an obvious way. With enough pressure he would have given in. So I'm not solely blaming the US for the escalation (which obviously applied a lot of pressure). The UN did not seem to be able to maximize the pressure by ratifying a clear resolution with a strict ultimatum and with the undisputable implication of war if not followed. However, that does not allow the US to do it on their own. The UN might not be perfect, but they are a fairly democratic institution, well, sort of anyway. Obviously flawed, but they're the only UN we have. So instead of depriving them of their power, the US should have enforced reforming the UN. But that would have required a lot of time and Bush opted to go the short way. It will now take numerous times as much effort to reform it and that's something that just has to be done, well not in Bush's term I guess, so it's not his problem. Call it leadership, I call it shortsightedness.
As to wheter there were WMD. Well, I believed he had them. But in my world, believing something is just not enough even if it is the most powerful man on earth who believes it. I saw Powells presentation of the so called facts they had. There was no evidence what so ever. At that time I headed into the presentation expecting some decisive facts and there just were none. For me, it doesn't matter if the US find WMD or not. It does not change the fact that Saddam has met his just fate. And it does not change the fact, that the US did not have enough evidence to convice the world at that time, that a war was just.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: a.weidner

Actually no. It's not that simple. Some conservatives tend to reduce everything to black and white, well the world just doesn't work that way. Terrorists and potential terrorists are hiding all over the world. Actively supporting terrorists could be qualified as a thread...

but not the mere presence of one of them in a country.

And btw, there's a striking difference between the Taliban regime and the Saddam regime. The Taliban were religious fundamentalists and were supporting a group of terrorists, who utilize religious believes to gain support). But I guess the religion factor doesn't matter, since the Bush administration made it clear from the very beginning that this was labeled as a "War on terror" instead of one on religious fundamantalism. Some may think, that was done on purpose to clear the path to Baghdad. But I guess it was just a neat term at that time.

Saddam was a typical dictator, who just wanted to satisfy his hunger for might and used every possible mean to keep and to gain more might. He was no religous man and as such was not a natural ally of Al-Qaida. His hybris was his fall.

He though the US would not break UN resolutions, stretching them like he did, but not breaking in an obvious way. With enough pressure he would have given in.

So I'm not solely blaming the US for the escalation (which obviously applied a lot of pressure). The UN did not seem to be able to maximize the pressure by ratifying a clear resolution with a strict ultimatum and with the undisputable implication of war if not followed. However, that does not allow the US to do it on their own. The UN might not be perfect, but they are a fairly democratic institution, well, sort of anyway. Obviously flawed, but...

they're the only UN we have. So instead of depriving them of their power, the US should have enforced reforming the UN. But that would have required a lot of time and Bush opted to go the short way. It will now take numerous times as much effort to reform it and that's something that just has to be done, well not in Bush's term I guess, so it's not his problem. Call it leadership, I call it shortsightedness.

As to wheter there were WMD.

Well, I believed he had them.

But in my world, believing something is just not enough even if it is the most powerful man on earth who believes it. I saw Powells presentation of the so called facts they had. There was no evidence what so ever. At that time I headed into the presentation expecting some decisive facts and there just were none. For me, it doesn't matter if the US find WMD or not. It does not change the fact that Saddam has met his just fate. And it does not change the fact, that the US did not have enough evidence to convice the world at that time, that a war was just.

I think we agree on several things.

But you must understand that I am a prideful native Texan - and a Hawkish American Nationalist. I feel my country's commander-in-chief holds an inherent right and justifiable duty to act unilaterally of any body, recognized or not, if national security is questioned. My president has a responsiblility to me first; to protect and serve. Should the greater good of mankind be served through his sanctioned protection of my inalienable rights then so be it.

Now I think me and George see eye to eye on this issue - and that's why I voted for him. Foreign policy. I happen to think the Bush Doctrine will make the "world" safer for my children. I think preemtive action is fucking brillant. I don't want to live like an Isreali, I want the world to go back to normal. In the short term I believe that means taking the fight abroad. I don't give a damn which country as long as the fighting is just not on the streets of Manhattan or in, God Forbid, a school or shopping mall over here.

Is that selfish? Probably - but every peoples understands self determination and self preservation. This terror threat - which in essence is a warlike footing similar to some of the most heated Cold War scenarios - must be eliminated. The fight has begun - and the fight will continue.

And our Boys will win.For the worlds sake.

[vinnieponte]

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte

...but they certainly help it.

[#1MavsFan]

They're not helping it currently with the war and all.

Now I think me and George see eye to eye on this issue - and that's why I voted for him. Foreign policy. I happen to think the Bush Doctrine will make the "world" safer for my children. I think preemtive action is fucking brillant. I don't want to live like an Isreali, I want the world to go back to normal. In the short term I believe that means taking the fight abroad. I don't give a damn which country as long as the fighting is just not on the streets of Manhattan or in, God Forbid, a school or shopping mall over here.

Is that selfish? Probably - but every peoples understands self determination and self preservation. This terror threat - which in essence is a warlike footing similar to some of the most heated Cold War scenarios - must be eliminated. The fight has begun - and the fight will continue.

Safer for your children? hah. More like encourage countries to devolp wmd's to have a chance to protect themselves, and turn civilians of poor countries into terrorists.

I don't give a damn which country as long as the fighting is just not on the streets of Manhattan or in, God Forbid, a school or shopping mall over here.

So you're basically saying its ok for us to go to war with any random country (iraq) but its not ok for them to do the same. hypocrite. If we go to war over dumbfounded reasons sooner or later someone will attach back, its human nature and it's amazing how so many people don't understand this and continue to think the war in iraq is doing some good when in reality they have NO clue of whats going on.

Also condian rice (the idiot that got promoted.) sounded a bit like she wanted to go to war with iran now. If we went to war with iran it would be like a REAL war since they have troops and weaponry to protect them selves unlike the iraqis who were just civilians fighting back. And the casualities would be 100 times as much and cause a bigger chance of another attack. Seriously how can someone that did about as bad as you can on your old job get promoted??? And you choose to keep rumsfield whos a fucking idiot even though you know Powell (only person in the bush regime with a approval rating of over 50%) won't stay if rumps does. These new decisions by Dubya will just get us in a bigger whole.

Boxer reads a quote from rice.
Rice replies with "why are you attacking my integrity"

wow.

[vinnieponte]

The truth!!

[vinnieponte]

George Bush's Puppet.........

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
IMG]http://img124.exs.cx/img124/4618/barbaraboxer1kq.jpg[/IMG]

crybaby

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
George Bush's Puppet.........

Funny how a black woman, a black jurist, the first black secstate are "puppets". Hmmmm sounds like someone (libs) have some deep-seated racism they need to deal with. Sooner or later the black community will wake up, open their eyes and realize that the socialist dems really are only interested in keeping them voting at 90%.

But some dems are smarter than others. Hillary for example just endorsed faith-based programs. Hmmm...wonder why. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say it's because THEY WORK and guvment programs only keep folks shackled to them.

How sad that that african americans have traded one set of shackles for another economic, political one.

[vinnieponte]

Originally posted by: dude1394

Funny how a black woman, a black jurist, the first black secstate are "puppets". Hmmmm sounds like someone (libs) have some deep-seated racism they need to deal with. Sooner or later the black community will wake up, open their eyes and realize that the socialist dems really are only interested in keeping them voting at 90%.

But some dems are smarter than others. Hillary for example just endorsed faith-based programs. Hmmm...wonder why. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say it's because THEY WORK and guvment programs only keep folks shackled to them.

How sad that that african americans have traded one set of shackles for another economic, political one.

Dude, I think it is funny how you turn my post's around, everytime! I find it funny how you claim I'm racist because I called her a puppet. Lets set the record straight since you and madape seem to have a hard time understanding. First off I'm Not racist, and just to let you know I'm 1/4th african american and italian. Second this post was me saying that rice will do whatever, say whatever just to please bush. He has the strings, and it was shown the other day when questioned by boxer. So before you jump to conclusions, ask first.